You're Not Your Job

august 25, 2010 : steve kong : 0 comment(s)

“You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis.” -Tyler Durden

This is especially true online. Your online persona can reflect many things about you and if you're not careful, it can tell a whole different story than what you are expecting. There are different ways to handle your online persona. You can purposefully have no online persona, choosing not to share anything and blocking out everyone – in other words, you are being a nobody and letting others define you. You can go about your business online without a care about what you post or share – defining yourself without thinking about how others, like recruiters or employers, see you. You can carefully cultivate and manage your online persona and build something. 


What you put on the internet stays on the internet forever, people are starting to finally understand this. And hopefully people are more careful when they put online. Do you wish you could put up your internal dialogue? We don't. It would probably be and endless boring rant about how you're hungry, how you need to go to the bathroom, how you think you're bored. Do you really need to post those pictures of yourself smashed at the party last night? Not really a good idea and probably worse if your Facebook profile is open to the public. Think first, post later. 


But, it is not about just what you post, but also where you maybe posting it. MySpace user? What are we? Still in the 90s? Facebook and Twitter user? You're hip and with the in-crowd – or at least giving it your best shot. @aol.com or @hotmail.com mail accounts? You are probably over 40. @gmail.com mail account? You're young. Mail at your own domain? Geek. Aims to get 1,000,000 Twitter followers? Attention whore. Just keep in mind that where you go online is almost as important as what you do online.

Ever Google yourself? I have (and do from time to time). The first result tells me that I am a hair stylist in New York. The second result? That's actually me, my Linkedin profile. Then there is the 21 year old on MySpace. Then there is some guy from Hong Kong. Oh, lets not forget the Steve Kong in Singapore who is apparently a good kisser. There's three ways I solved this issue: First, I add my nickname Mookie to everything. I am the one and only Steve Mookie Kong online. If you search for either Steve Mookie Kong or Mookie Kong, you'll get me and only me. Second, I use the more esoteric “ultramookie” username for most of my personal stuff and you can find me that way. And lastly, I have created (like my buddy JR Conlin) a simple vanity page that directs people to the real places that represent me: mookiesplace.com. Why let a search engine do it when I can control it myself? 

So, who are you?

In Advance, Yes!

august 13, 2010 : steve kong : 0 comment(s)

What in the world? I got this message in my Linkedin box today. This recruiter is so lazy, he's asking me to help him find people?

Pardon the intrusion, but you and I share similar
Linkedin groups and I was hoping you might be able to help me out with
referrals.

I am working with [insert crap].

The one must have for the roles is that this person has to come from a
web production environment (vs enterprise or internal corporate).

In advance, thanks for any help you can offer and if I can be of assistance to you in the future, do not hesitate to contact me.

Wow, not "hey, come see if this job will fit you", but "hey, can you help me do my job?"

To that question, I say, "Yes! I can help."  But, in advance, please send my share of the recruiting fees that you will earn from my referrals. Thanks and please do not hesitate to not contact me ever again.

The Glades

august 11, 2010 : steve kong : 1 comment(s)

I caught The Glades premiere a few weeks ago and really liked the main character Jim Longworth -- "I do not play well with others," he tells us during the intro sequence and he shows that he doesn't.  And this is the kind of character I like, a somewhat modern cowboy. He's an aggravating character that grew on me. The problem is that after five episodes, I am getting tired of the shows writing. That is unfortunate because I really like the Longworth character and wished that he had something better to do than a typical formula.

I tend to over-analyze things, especially when it comes to TV and movies. I sit there watching and being entertained, yet there is always this part in the back of my brain that is analyzing the show/film as it runs. Yes, most TV shows fall into a formula, but some writers stick too closely to the formula and at that point I start to smell the stink.  Here's the formula for The Glades:

  1. There is a murder (duh, this show is about a homicide detective).
  2. Said detective is put on the case and uses his charm, wit, sarcasm and brilliance to deal with suspects.
  3. The detective battles his attraction to a married nurse who has a husband in jail.
  4. The detective exchanges barbs with the Chief Forensic Medical Examiner.
  5. The detective and forensics guy make a giddy intern do menial work.
  6. The detective interviews lots of suspects who really, really look guilty.
  7. The detective notices one small, unsuspecting character and disregards such character.
  8. The detective consults the nurse that he is attracted to. It usually is about something woman or research related.
  9. The detective instantly figures out the murderer -- whom, as in each episode, is the "one small, unsuspecting character" he disregards.
  10. Roll credits.


The premiere followed this formula and at the end, I was surprised and thought, "Whoa! That's brilliant."  Then the second episode did it again and I thought, "Kind of suspicious."  Third, fourth and fifth ones?  The same.

Now I am about to remove the show from the DVR schedule because I know from previous experience, TV shows that start off tightly following a formula tend never to get out of that formula. And like I said before, that's unfortunate because the character Jim Longworth (and the actor who portrays him, Matt Passmore) are pretty awesome.


Life as an Interviewer

july 31, 2010 : steve kong : 3 comment(s)

A while back I was put on a team of interviewers for new service engineering candidates. In the past, I did a lot of interviewing and then it became quiet. Now, it seems to be picking up again and I wanted to write down some thoughts about the interviewing process.

Usually, I walk around the office bemoaning the fact that I have to do yet-another-interview -- but, in reality I like doing interviews because I like to interact with candidates. I like to see how the creative and smart ones tackle questions. And I like the fluidity of the chat with smart candidates. The thing I do not like is dealing with those that are not ready.

Before an interview, I take a good look at resumes -- these are the first impression. If there are spelling mistakes on the resume, it knocks off points from the candidate. The resume is an ad for yourself, make it good and take the time to iron out mistakes in the resume. If I see that you know "tasteful firewalls", I know for sure that you relied a little too much on the spellchecker and didn't take the extra time to proofread your resume manually. That reflects badly on the you.

What bugs me most are the people that list things on their resume and do not bring that knowledge to the interview. If you list that you know Perl, at least be able to tell me the difference between an array and a hash. If you list bash, then at least be able to show me that you can write a for-loop. If you list Unix/Linux then you'd better be able to answer a whole slew of systems questions. Lying on your resume will only get you into trouble because it is you vs. whoever was picked to interview you. Usually, if you list a specialty, the company will have someone to grill you on it.

Know that the person who is interviewing you has taken time out to come, sit and talk with you. What I let people know before we start is that I am not looking for them to answer all my questions correctly. What I am looking for is how they think, how they figure things out and how they will fit into a role at the company.

Given this, it is important to know that saying "I don't know" is actually a good thing. If you sit and stammer and "uhm, uhm, uhm" and waste time, that is wasting my time -- and taking time away from me being able to find out more about you. A lot of times, I will get candidates who, I am guessing, feel that saying "I don't know" is some sign of weakness -- it is not. If you don't know, you don't know. Pulling some answer out of your butt will make you look worse than saying "I don't know."

I bring to interviews three types of questions: basic "I memorized these arguments" questions, more advanced "softball" questions, and problem-solving/troubleshooting questions. Examples:

The memorize questions are just starters and I usually don't ask many of those because most of us don't memorize a lot -- we use "man" and we use search engines. That's fine.

The softball questions are concepts that I feel that candidates should know based on what they have written on their resumes. If you can't hit the softballs, we have a problem.

The problem-solving and troubleshooting questions are the ones that are most important. And, I think it's important to remember that asking questions is priority when it comes to these questions. If you're asked to troubleshoot an issue dealing with 1000 hosts, then you should ask, "How are these hosts named? Is there a sequential pattern? Are they listed in a text file?" Show me that you're thinking through the problem and talk me through what you are thinking. This helps me gauge your skills.

I always leave the last 10 to 15 minutes of an interview for the candidate to ask questions. Someone who wants the job asks questions. "What are the people like here? Is it fun to work here? What's your job like? How are the perks? What's the benefits like?" And other questions. If you don't ask questions, it's a sign that you're not really interested in the job -- so be sure you bring some questions.

I just finished an interview on Thursday, it was horrible and it's the first for this quarter. There are more candidates to be interviewed and I can't wait.

Avatar

june 5, 2010 : steve kong : 1 comment(s)

I won't doubt the technical achievements of Avatar, they are spectacular.  But, from a pure entertainment standpoint, Avatar is just a mediocre film.  The heavy-handed preaching about being Green, the hit-you-over-the-head anti-war message, those drove the entertainment value of the film down. 

I enjoy Cameron films, T2 and The Abyss being the my favourites because of their strong characters and storylines.  Avatar may have a lot of thought and research behind the planet Pandora, but the story is pretty thin.  Humans find a chemical compound that can save Earth from its energy crisis on a planet named Pandora.  The compound is named Unobtanium -- though, shouldn't they change the name of the compound though? Since they already are obtaining it? 

The story follows a paraplegic ex-Marine as he controls an "avatar", or a body of a pseudo-Navi that he can take over with his brain. The Na'vi are really tall blue natives that live on Pandora and run around half-naked because all people that are so heavily connected with nature prefer to run around half-naked.  The Na'vi also apparently have the same Quaker-driven taboos as seen by the way the Na'vi women cover up strategic body locations.  I digress though.

The humans being the very bad people we are, choose to destroy the Na'vi in order to mine Unobtanium.  There is a fight.  One side wins.  Go ahead guess which side wins -- given the depth of this story -- it is not too hard to guess.  Then roll credits.

All of this takes place in what seems to be a three hour film, but turns out to only be two-and-a-half hours.

Yes, go ahead, hate me for not screaming how fanatically I loved Avatar.  Go ahead, hate me for not wanting to watch it over and over again.  Oh, and go ahead and tell me how I didn't like it because I didn't see it in 3D.  And this is where I fault Avatar:  The film is a technical spectacle and not much else. Strip the technical aspects away and all you have is Pocahontas in Space.

In an article by Wired, it was noted that after Cameron first saw Star Wars he was pissed.  Star Wars was the film that he should have made, that is what pissed him off so much.  Avatar was his way to out-Lucas George Lucas.  I say that Cameron failed to out-Lucas George Lucas.  Even now, when I watch the original Star Wars (Episode IV) I love it.  Not because of the spectacle -- I was barely two-years old when Star Wars was released to theaters -- since there are more technically brilliant films out now (like Avatar).  I still love watching Star Wars because it has this sense of fun that Avatar is missing  It has memorable characters that I love. It has humor and is not all serious -- there was a glimpse of humor in Avatar, but not much. All of this is missing from Avatar.  Which is sad because you can tell that Cameron and crew put a lot of thought behind Pandora and everything related to it.

Did I enjoy Avatar?  Yes, it was quite a breathtaking spectacle. Did I love Avatar?  No, it was overly-long and overly-preachy.

( home ) next >>